linux-kernel - Re: LogFS merge

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 3 May 2008 10:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
cc:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LogFS merge

On Sat, 3 May 2008, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 
> Why not merge it and mark it experimental then ? In fact, this is about
> what you're looking for : reduced merge hassle and more testers.

The real issue for me wrt a filesystem is the on-disk layout.

If we know that on-disk structures need change, we shouldn't merge it. It 
doesn't matter if that can be worked around with some backwards- 
compatibiltiy flag: we should simply not encourage that kind of behaviour. 
It would be much much better to just get a layout that is as final as 
possible and avoid the "there are two different formats, because the first 
format was known to be broken" issue.

Will extensions happen and add features anyway? Probably. But that's 
different from merging something knowing that the on-disk format will 
change.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/